[Zombie]

Been sitting with this stuff for a couple days now so I could formulate my reply properly. Let's see how it goes...

Originally Posted by Fiver

I don't look at it that way. The act of gay sex is voluntary. The act of adultery is voluntary. You can't choose not have the thoughts or urges, but ya have the choice whether or not to act on them.

Any sex act is voluntary, both heterosexual acts AND homosexual acts - excluding rape, which is, by definition, y'know...involuntary.

If you can't choose what sexual thoughts and urges you have, that goes for both heterosexuals and homosexuals, yes? Then why is it only okay for heterosexuals to act on those thoughts and urges they were born with?

That's basically calling a large section of the population broken. "Sure, you were born thinking this way, but - and I'm not judging here, it's just the way it is, I'm real sorry - it actually turns out that it's bad wrong to be this way, so you can't have a normal, fulfilling love life with a partner of your choosing, unlike us lucky heterosexual folks that happened to be born with the "right stuff." Sorry 'bout that. But you can think about it all you want!"

Why in the world would a loving god create a large section of the population to be broken if he thought homosexual sex was such a bad thing? Why would he condemn these people to a life empty of the love, compassion and human connection with someone they are attracted to and connect to just as the heterosexuals are "allowed" to do, on pain of eternal damnation?

Or, perhaps more importantly, why on earth would you want a god like that?

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

That's pretty offensive- comparing gay sex (between two single consenting adults) with adultery (which has all kinds of violative connotations to it).

I found it offensive for entirely different reasons - adultery is easily avoided. Don't cheat on your wife/husband. If you want to get laid, you can always just go bang your spouse, and be abomination-free. That's easy.

Gay people, however, don't have that choice, according to this logic - they don't have the option of being able to have sex with someone they are actually attracted to without not passing go and heading straight to the Bad Place.

I think that's terrible.

Originally Posted by LikeAWillow

There's evidence that sadistic personality disorder has biological routes. Should a sadist be accepted for acting on their impulses?

I know your finger is hovering over the reply button right now.Take a deep breath before you jump right back up on that soapbox.

I'm not equating homosexuality with sadism. I think what I just said was complete bull****. If it's not, I'm Tom Bundy for the relations I've had with other women. It is a hole in your argument, though, and when you have the balls to ask a poster with a thought out, structured, and well-intentioned post to

,especially when your own are little more than rhetoric, you hurt our cause more than you help it. Fiver is trying to have a discussion with you. Being militant in response degrades that discussion.

I may be reading everyone's replies wrong, but I don't think that your equating a person with "sadistic personality disorder" (which isn't actually a real clinical disorder, as far as I know) acting on those sadistic impulses with homosexuals acting on their "impulses" is actually a good way to try to point out a perceived hole in the argument.

Mind you, I am not defending or agreeing with anyone in this particular area of this thread (other than I do agree that less militant is usually good all around, in any discussion) - I just don't think that analogy is intellectually honest.

Sadism, by nature, hurts people. We stop violent sociopaths and psychopaths from acting on their harmful impulses because they are harmful impulses. They hurt people - of course they shouldn't be allowed to do that. But homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone. It's like trying to compare apples to 747s.